They can't NOT KNOW, readers!"Troops Already Outnumber Taliban 12-1; focus now on wisdom of adding more"
by SLOBODAN LEKIC Associated Press Writer
Then WHY are we LOSING?
BRUSSELS October 27, 2009 (AP) -- There are already
more than 100,000 international troops in Afghanistan working with 200,000 Afghan security forces and police. It adds up to a
12-1 numerical advantage over Taliban rebels, but it hasn't led to anything close to victory....
Unless they are under-counting the "rebels." You know, the people who live there!With October now the deadliest month for U.S. forces in the war, many experts question the need for more troops. "The U.S. and its allies already have
ample numbers and firepower to
annihilate the Taliban, if
only the Taliban would cooperate by standing still and
allowing us to bomb them to smithereens," said Andrew Bacevich, a professor of international relations and history at Boston University, and one-time platoon leader in Vietnam....
Whose son was killed in Iraq. The
Taliban rebels are estimated to number no more than 25,000. Ljubomir Stojadinovic, a military analyst and guerrilla warfare expert from Serbia, said that although McChrystal's
reinforcements would lift the ratio to 20-1 or more, they would prove
counterproductive. "It's impossible to regain the initiative by introducing more foreign forces, which will
only breed more resentment and more recruits for the enemy," he said. "The
Soviets tried the exact same thing in Afghanistan in the 1980s with disastrous results."
Related: U.S. Training Terrorists in Nevada
We never learn, do we? McChrystal's defenders say the U.S. has learned from Soviets' mistakes....
At his instruction, NATO troops are.... allowing insurgent units to remain untouched if they are not deemed an imminent threat.....
Unless you have to holler "terror attack" here in the U.S. Then they are coming.
In addition, while there may be as many as 25,000 Taliban, it is not a monolithic group.... it is a scattered and diverse mix of insurgents, some more ideologically motivated than others....
Yeah, I KNOW: Taliban I Told You So
The 12-1 ratio may be misleading because two-thirds of the Allied force is made up of Afghans, who lack the training and experience. The Taliban usually fight in small, cohesive units made up of friends and fellow clansmen. A more meaningful ratio, then, might be 4-1 or 5-1....
Translation: We have ANOTHER DECEPTIVE HEADLINE and LIE here!!!!
WTF, world? What is WRONG with my AmeriKan newspaper?
Sometimes remaining small gives guerrillas certain advantages. British forces in Northern Ireland found it relatively easy to monitor and penetrate the Irish Republican Army when its ranks were swollen in the 1970s, but had a tougher time once the IRA slashed staff and regrouped into secretive four-person units.
Related: FRU
It looks like they were doing more than monitoring and penetrating!!
DIRECTING TERROR ATTACKS?
Some analysts suggest that a NATO force much larger than the one under consideration would be needed to subdue the Taliban....
You aren't going to "subdue" them! No one has for centuries!!!
How about LEAVING THEM ALONE!?
Retired Army Col. Peter Mansoor, who helped oversee the "surge" of U.S. forces into Iraq in 2007-2008. ".... This would require one security person to every 50 people. In a country of about 32 million, this means about 600,000 security personnel would be needed to clamp it down."
It's in the plan, readers.
--more--"
And how did an article saying we have more than a 12-to-1 ratio of forces go to ADVOCATING a MAJOR SURGE, huh?
Don't we have TOO MANY THERE as it is?
